with all the hoo-ha about the NI/UK border, what is a soft border anyway, and how does it differ from a 'no' border'?

surely it's just the same thing?

No border controls means there is no customs or passporting requirement at all.

A soft border is an ill defined term, but essentially means that there isn't a need for customs officials spot checking deliveries of goods physically at the border, isn't a need for stopping vehicles to check their paperwork at the border and there isn't a need for customs officials physically checking passports at the border. There could (in theory) be a mechanism elsewhere for compliance.

The EU currently has soft borders, despite the restrictions on Schengen vs. non-Schengen countries and movement of non-EU nationals. The borders still exist, if you cross into (say) Belgium while on the run from the Spanish authorities the Spanish police can't just come and get you because it's a different political sovereignty and the laws and everything else are still Belgian.

I'd think that at least part of the problem is that mainland Britain never benefited much from soft borders, as to get into another country you always had to get on a boat/train/plane and the requisite security and ID checks for that make it feel somewhat like a hard border anyway.

My sesne is it’s like US states. One can mive freely between them, though there are differing laws and jurisdictions between them.

felltoearth wrote:My sesne is it’s like US states. One can mive freely between them, though there are differing laws and jurisdictions between them.

Thinking more about it, there's already such a soft border between England and Scotland. At least differing jurisdictions apply either side of it. That said, you're still in the same country in both cases and hackles only seem to get raised when you're looking at soft borders between different countries. I'm not sure if there's any logic to that though, or whether it's just pure tribalism.

other than an attempt to block Brexit, can't see why having some kind of bordrer between NI and ROI is that big an issue - people may gripe and complain at first but then they'll get used to it, rather like having to queue up in Morrisons on a busy sat morning

Assistant required at the mother and child parking area - possible trolley-bomb.

sounds like appeasement to me!

I think when you have a shared and intertwined history such as there is, it is worth the effort to see if there is an amicable path to reduce the impact of Brexit there.

Sarah's party wrote:sounds like appeasement to me!

How so?

Can you describe the conditions of appeasement, as it's previously occurred, and how this fits?

seems like you are saying (as many anti-Brexit people do) , that a border of any kind must be avoided, otherwise the IRA may decide to cause trouble again. Therefore, appeasement is being portrayed by giving in to to this - rather like not locking your door in case the burglar gets offended.

Jesus.

Sarah's party wrote:seems like you are saying (as many anti-Brexit people do)...

It does?

Anyway, I don't think it's like appeasement, and I don't think you've provided a reason to think it is. I'll explain why.

For me, in the modern world and a political context, appeasement refers to, or relates to the concept of a specific policy that was adopted towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.[1] The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy[2] between 1935 and 1939.

The salient features here are that demands are made by a nation state and another nation state accedes to these demands not because they necessarily feel the demands are fair or in their own interest, but because it will avoid an international conflict.

So, if the IRA were asking for no border checks, and the British government said it did not want to go along with that, that it wanted border controls, then the IRA resorted to threats of violence and conflict and this caused the British government to change its policy and give the IRA the thing it wanted, but that the British government did not, then that would be (close to a form of) appeasement.

On the other hand if the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Ireland agree that they don't want border controls and therefore the governments representing those peoples represent their views by trying to avoid border controls the situation is very different.

It might be true that one of the reasons for the depth of feeling here is the prospect (rather than threat per se) of a return to violence, but the position has not been arrived at through capitulation in the face of a threat. It's more akin to having a police force as a response to crime, you're moving to do what you think is best as a response to a problem, not overriding your own judgement with that of a coercive opponent's.

The responsible adults on both sides of the border, and in the rest of UK and in EU, do not want Brexit to risk the hard won but still delicate peace that has transformed the lives of the people of NI. It's not even about the practicalities of a border particularly, soft hard or perennial, it's the symbolism and the effect on confidence.

The children of the Reese Mogg school don't give a flying fuck about such things.

The arrogance of those who think it's not a problem ...

Unless you have a massive off shore account you will be far worse off after Brexit.

The UK is a massive off shore account.

For some.

Thommo wrote:

Anyway, I don't think it's like appeasement, and I don't think you've provided a reason to think it is. I'll explain why.

.......
It might be true that one of the reasons for the depth of feeling here is the prospect (rather than threat per se) of a return to violence, but the position has not been arrived at through capitulation in the face of a threat. It's more akin to having a police force as a response to crime, you're moving to do what you think is best as a response to a problem, not overriding your own judgement with that of a coercive opponent's.

Cool story bro!

ronmcd wrote:The responsible adults on both sides of the border, and in the rest of UK and in EU, do not want Brexit to risk the hard won but still delicate peace that has transformed the lives of the people of NI. It's not even about the practicalities of a border particularly, soft hard or perennial, it's the symbolism and the effect on confidence.

The children of the Reese Mogg school don't give a flying fuck about such things.

The arrogance of those who think it's not a problem ...

LMFAO - and it's you guys who keep calling the Breixteer's 'little Englanders dreaming of a past glory that never existed'!


Pot kettle black!